On 06-11-2009, Jan Kybic <kybic@fel.cvut.cz> wrote:
>> On Wednesday 04 November 2009 22:21:24 Jan Kybic wrote:
>>> > and crashes rather than performance. Moreover, I would note that the
>>> > performant ATS code out there seems to go to *great* lengths to avoid the
>>> > GC whenever possible, so I suspect it is extremely slow in the context of
>>> > heavily allocating code or many short-lived values (much like HLVM). For
>>>
>>> This will be easy to test.
>>
>> I'd like to know what you find in this respect.
>
> Here are my preliminary results. Please note that I am a beginner in
> ATS so my ATS code is rather ugly. But it is a more or less direct
> translation from Ocaml. I imagine the ATS results can be improved.
> I have asked at the ATS list about that.
>
> I have implemented two benchmarks:
>
> - eight queens, I actually used ten. I believe the original Ocaml
> implementation was probably yours. It uses lists as a primary
> structure, so there is a lot of allocations. On this task, ATS needs
> about 50% more time than Ocaml.
>
> - bubble sort on an array of doubles. Here ATS is more than 10 times
> faster than Ocaml (for n=10000).
>
Are you using amd64 architecture ?
Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall